Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Seraphim73]

Yes, it is if you consider that no one there argued the points he made, i.e., do you seriously think he was committing some heresy or novelty by saying what he said, they, the bishops, would not have stood for it!! We are talking of more than 200 bishops present while the papal legate spoke, and not one word is mentioned of their being a dispute over his statement.

He was speaking Latin. Few people understood what he was saying. Either way being haughty and arrogant is not heresy. Saying nice things about the Bishop of Rome is not heresy. There were equally hyperbolic statements made about the emperor and no one turned that into dogma. You can’t look at statements through the lens of modern papal dogmas. No one at Chalcedon could have imagined in their wildest dreams that the papacy would become what it is today. They would have no reason to oppose something that didn’t exist.

Are you seriously saying that they didn’t say anything because they didn’t understand him?? I mean there were no translators at these ecumenical councils, no one was able to understand him. REALLY??? Am I also to believe that when Pope St. Leo’s tome was written and read in Latin, that the fathers at Chalcedon didn’t understand what was being said, yet still proclaimed:

How many languages do you speak? And the tome was not read and then accepted. It was read then the council fathers took FIVE DAYS to study what he wrote. There is a reason the tome was studied for five days. The tome was accepted after comparing it to what Cyril wrote and determining Leo agreed with Cyril. It was not accepted because it was from the Pope. Were you not aware the council took five days to study Leo’s tome?

How does this invalidate papal supremacy, unless you are thinking of an absolute form of supremacy, which the Catholic Church does not teach, i.e., we do not believe that a pope works alone and without his fellow brother bishops.

So if Pope Francis were to excommunicate a bishop it’s possible that a council could revisit that decision?

Moreover, it is we who have 22 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS under our belts so I think we understand the meaning of the word “COLLEGIALITY”!!!

Actually collegiality is a condemned heresy. Thankfully recent popes seem to be walking that back somewhat.

So again, you’ve given me a straw-man argument that has nothing to do with papal supremacy.

What people do has everything to do with what they believe.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have pointed to specific verses in the Bible as evidence that Peter is the Royal Steward.

They are right in front of you. There’s nothing to believe. They are fact.

Show me where I deny them

What I presented is how the Church Catholic exercised Her authority differently to the later claims of Rome and after the great schism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Union between East and West will resolve any and all claims.

Those from the East do not want this.

 

[Seraphim73]

Lol a failed attempt yeah

With pope vigilius this was a failed attempt as vigilius was the one who the council needed to confirm its acts. that’s why so much pressure was on vigilius as the council had no ecclesiastical force without his signature. there is simply no proof from the Council records themselves that Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. All we have is the request of the Emperor to strike the name of the Pope from the diptychs of the Eastern Churches, and a subsequent acknowledgement from the Council Fathers to “preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read.”

one observes that ** Sentence of the Council itself does not even mention so momentous an occasion as the excommunication of a Patriarch – i.e., Vigilius. Far from it, the Council actually appeals to Vigilius in order to uphold its own decisions!!! ** the last thing we read concerning Vigilius in the Sentence is that the Council acknowledges that Vigilius “promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters.” (BTW, this latter fact also definitely refutes the canard that the Council did not require papal approval. Aside from that latter fact, it is also a fact that so important was Pope Vigilius’ approval to the Council that they would not permit him to return home to Rome without said approval, which he finally gave six months after the Council sentence. At that point, and only at that point, the Council became Ecumenical).

The only possible conclusion is that the Council did not excommunicate Pope Vigilius (by striking his name off the diptychs). The Council’s statement “carry out all things according to the tenor of what has been read” must refer not to Constantine’s (Justinian’s envoy) VERBAL request that the Pope’s name be stricken from the diptychs, but directly to requests from the letter of the emperor which was read immediately after that verbal request. One can surmise the letter contained instructions to proceed with the Council Sentence, remain united to the Apostolic See, and use Vigilius’ name in support of its decisions. Indeed, all this was done, and, as noted above, the Council’s Sentence had no reference to the excommunication, but rather appealed to Vigilius by name to uphold its own decisions.

The pope was finally forced to sign the decrees. Before that Justinian said he should be stricken from the diptychs and the council agreed. Again I’m afraid you are looking at history through the lens of modern Catholic dogma. Breaks in communion were common in the early Church. Striking a pope from the diptychs was not nearly as momentous and you guys would like.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show me where I deny them.

Why? I have not claimed that you denied them.

What I presented is how the Church Catholic exercised Her authority differently to the later claims of Rome and after the great schism.

Yes. And what I have asked of you is to show me the verses of Sacred Scripture handed down from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers which were used BEFORE THE GREAT SCHISM to explain why those Council Fathers supported a limited papacy.

What verses limit the scope of the papacy?

C’mon, Isaiah. You’ve suggested on more than one occasion that my approach is that of a sola scripturist. Well, when I’m explaining the scriptural basis for Catholic doctrines to real sola scripturists, I like to use scripture to prove them wrong.

If some of the Council Fathers from Nicaea or Chalcedon were alive today, wouldn’t they be appalled at the abuse of power exhibited by the Roman Bishop?

What verses would they use to make their arguments?

 

[Seraphim73]

What verses limit the scope of the papacy?

What verses limit the scope of the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Patriarch of Antioch?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Those from the East do not want this.

:nope:

That’s a 2-way street.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What verses limit the scope of the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Patriarch of Antioch?

That is not my argument.

I have never said that other stewards in the household of the king do not exist nor have I said that they do not have real authority.

What I have pointed out is that only one steward has the keys, and they are in Rome.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What verses limit the scope of the papacy?

I have already presented them. Here’s a refresher.

Matt 18:18 - ALL the disciple can bind and lose.
Matt 28 - Go and teach what Jesus has taught us. Not just Peter.
1 Tim 3:15-16 - The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Not a single Bishop.
Ephesians 2:20 - All the Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation of the Church. Not just Peter.

C’mon, Isaiah. You’ve suggested on more than one occasion that my approach is that of a sola scripturist. Well, when I’m explaining the scriptural basis for Catholic doctrines to real sola scripturists, I like to use scripture to prove them wrong.

It is Sola Scriptura combined with Sola Cephas.

On a separate note, I knew what was coming on another thread when someone challenged to use Scripture alone for refuting Peter’s leadership… I knew it was just a matter of time before you posted the Royal Steward, lol. I warned the poster to not do it

So, what verses can you show me?

See above

 

[Seraphim73]

:nope:

That’s a 2-way street.

Don’t worry. It’s another common tactic. They can’t begin to fathom how someone could rationally reject the claims of the papacy so they attribute any rejection as irrational anti-western bigotry or politically motivated or self aggrandizing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

:nope:

That’s a 2-way street.

Oh.

So, *that’s *why the Catholic Popes for the past 800 years have been encouraging the EO to re-unite with Rome.

*That *explains why the EO have been invited to how many councils now…?

That explains why the EO actually attended Vatican II as observers.

That’s why John Paul II met with…oh, never mind.

Britannica. Wiki. New Advent. The usual suspects.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II’s_relations_with_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh.

So, *that’s *why the Catholic Popes for the past 800 years have been encouraging the EO to re-unite with Rome.

*That *explains why the EO have been invited to how many councils now…?

That explains why the EO actually attended Vatican II as observers.

That’s why John Paul II met with…oh, never mind.

Britannica. Wiki. New Advent. The usual suspects.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II’s_relations_with_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church

That’s Pope St. John Paul II to you sir.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh.

So, *that’s *why the Catholic Popes for the past 800 years have been encouraging the EO to re-unite with Rome.

*That *explains why the EO have been invited to how many councils now…?

That explains why the EO actually attended Vatican II as observers.

That’s why John Paul II met with…oh, never mind.

Britannica. Wiki. New Advent. The usual suspects.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II’s_relations_with_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church

He is a saint.

Nonetheless, the West is asking the East to get back together on the West’s terms.

Whereas, the East is asking the West to get back together on the East’s terms.

And our conversation regarding this subject has made the same progress those talks made

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have already presented them. Here’s a refresher.

What you present is pure eisegesis. Or gross misunderstanding. Or both.

Matt 18:18 - ALL the disciple can bind and lose.

Amen! But this does not limit Peter. It expands the authority of the other 11. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

Matt 28 - Go and teach what Jesus has taught us. Not just Peter.

This does not limit Peter. It simply commissions all the apostles to make disciples of all nations. Jesus never expected one guy to convert the entire world. But He did expect one guy to oversee that process. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

1 Tim 3:15-16 - The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Not a single Bishop.

Amen! Love that verse. But notice that it says nothing about limiting Peter. The Church is ultimately headed by the one Bishop whom Christ established in about five places. The buck stops at Peter’s desk. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

Ephesians 2:20 - All the Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation of the Church. Not just Peter.

Amen! Another classic Protestant argument. All the apostles ARE foundational. But this does not diminish the fact that in context of Matthew 16:18-19, only one of those foundations stones was actually handed the keys. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

I knew it was just a matter of time before you posted the Royal Steward, lol. I warned the poster to not do it.

Yes, I know. I bet you got a kick out of that.

But neither you nor anyone else thus far has been able to refute the argument, so why not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

He is a saint.

Nonetheless, the West is asking the East to get back together on the West’s terms.

Whereas, the East is asking the West to get back together on the East’s terms.

And our conversation regarding this subject has made the same progress those talks made

Um…but you said it was a 2-way street implying - based on what I had previously written - that Catholics do NOT want re-unification.

A minor distraction from this thread, but that was clearly an error on your part.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t worry. It’s another common tactic. They can’t begin to fathom how someone could rationally reject the claims of the papacy so they attribute any rejection as irrational anti-western bigotry or politically motivated or self aggrandizing.

I can fathom it. Church history is littered with the shattered ideas of heretics whose ideas were completely rational.

They were also wrong.

 

[Wandile]

The pope was finally forced to sign the decrees. Before that Justinian said he should be stricken from the diptychs and the council agreed. Again I’m afraid you are looking at history through the lens of modern Catholic dogma. Breaks in communion were common in the early Church. Striking a pope from the diptychs was not nearly as momentous and you guys would like.

They forced him to sign because the council needed his approval.
The Council appealed to Vigilius in order to uphold its own decisions

That is the historical reality and the fathers and church historians unanimously testify that no council has force without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

When anyone is excommunicated, the church does not look to them for their signature on the decisions at church councils. They don’t give a hoot about the excommunicated party because they are outside the church. But here this council we see the fathers after “excommunicating” Vigilius, refusing to let him go back to Rome unless he signs and gives approval of the council. Why would they do this if he were truly excommunicated?

 

[prodromos]

I have pointed to specific verses in the Bible as evidence that Peter is the Royal Steward.

This does not bode well for the Catholic Church.
** Isaiah 22:20-25 **
20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honour to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 On that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about one authority limiting another authority. One binding something that another loosed, etc. Let’s consider this for a moment to see if we can eliminate any confusion.

Each of the apostles was individually infallible. Not one of them could teach error with regard to faith and morals. Does this mean that one apostle was limited by the existence of the others?

Well, it *would *if by authority it is meant that each apostle was perfectly free to do whatever he pleased. But that is not the case.

Let me begin by providing a little background for for those who are unfamiliar with or who deny infallibility. First, Jesus was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, and He intentionally referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter as His royal steward. Additionally, Peter received authority from Jesus to speak in His name, and to do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error. Therefore, Peter (and his successors who are the leaders of Jesus’ Church) are protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals. This is called “infallibility”.

Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this curious passage mean? There are two possible interpretations.

First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing performed by the Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.

A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

So, my question for those who struggle with the idea that Peter is the head of the Church because of the existence of other infallible apostles is this: Can those who teach what is true in heaven perfectly and without error ever be at odds with one another?

If Andrew is infallible and teaches without error, why would Peter have to “bind” something Andrew loosed? They would be in perfect agreement. Similarly, if Peter bound a matter and his decision was in complete accord with the will of God, why would James or John need to come along and loose it?

Since those who teach that which is true in heaven without error, there could never be any lack of harmony amongst them. Thus, the existence of others who could bind or loose did not limit the true authority of Peter, the Royal Steward, in any way.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[spina1953]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about one authority limiting another authority. One binding something that another loosed, etc. Let’s consider this for a moment to see if we can eliminate any confusion.

Each of the apostles was individually infallible. Not one of them could teach error with regard to faith and morals. Does this mean that one apostle was limited by the existence of the others?

Well, it *would *if by authority it is meant that each apostle was perfectly free to do whatever he pleased. But that is not the case.

Let me begin by providing a little background for for those who are unfamiliar with or flat-out deny infallibility. Jesus was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, and He intentionally referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter as His royal steward. Peter received authority from Jesus to speak in His name, and to do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error. Therefore, Peter (and his successors who are the leaders of Jesus’ Church) are protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals. This is called “infallibility”.

Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this curious passage mean? There are two possible interpretations.

First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing performed by the Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.

A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

So, my question for those who struggle with the idea that Peter is the head of the Church because of the existence of other infallible apostles is this: Can those who teach what is true in heaven perfectly and without error ever be at odds with one another?

If Andrew is infallible and teaches without error, why would Peter have to “bind” something Andrew loosed? They would be in perfect agreement. Similarly, if Peter bound a matter and his decision was in complete accord with the will of God, why would James or John need to come along and loose it?

Since those who teach that which is true in heaven without error, there could never be any lack of harmony amongst them. Thus, the existence of others who could bind or loose did not limit the true authority of Peter, the Royal Steward, in any way.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Hi Randy: Wow! You said a mouth full with this post you have given us I had not thought of it that way but it makes a lot of sense when one thinks about it. You gave the best thinking on infallibility that I have heard, and why peter is the leader of the Church along side with the Apostles who so far I have read in Scripture did not disagree with peter but instead looked to him as a leader as well as a spokesperson for them. They all taught truth and Peter strengthen them as Jesus told him to do.